Mosaic

Mosaic helps solve the problem of the lack of knowledge about crypto market and crypto assets by providing a decentralized market intelligence network with a user interface

About Mosaic

The Mosaic platform plans to provide users with access to reputable researchers and their research, and allow users to vote on research topics. MZX tokens will be used to give users access to the platform, vote on topics, and reward researchers for their contributions.

Token Sale Use of Blockchain

Product

2.4
Product
Readiness

Is the product ready for use? Is there a working prototype or MVP? How long until it is operational?

2.0
N/A
2 - Proof of concept or test platform.
Appeal

How appealing is the product? How good or necessary is it? Does it have a distinct edge?

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.
Target User Base

Is it mass market or niche?

2.0
N/A
2 - Small audience / niche market.
Competition

Are there many other similar solutions or is this one of just a few, or even one of a kind?

4.0
N/A
4 - Few competitors / a leading solution.
Innovation

How innovative or inventive is the product, either conceptually or technologically?

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, but nothing outstanding.

Product

The Mosaic platform is targeting quite a small user base. However, to the benefit of Mosaic, the level of competition for a decentralized, democratized, research platform is relatively low compared to other sectors within the blockchain ecosystem. A GitHub page is not provided but a proof-of-concept is available on the Mosaic website.

Product Whitepaper

Use of Blockchain

2.4
Use of Blockchain
Blockchain Development

Is blockchain technology essential? Does it make the solution significantly different and better?

3.0
N/A
3 - Automation; making something easier to do.
Disruptive Blockchain Advantage

How disruptive is the introduction of blockchain technology into the product's market space?

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, but not much.
Need for a Custom Token (vs. BTC or ETH)

Is the token essential or could it be done just as well or better with fiat or Bitcoin?

3.0
N/A
3 - Issuing a custom token is justifiable.
System Decentralization (besides token)

How decentralized is the system architecture other than the token (e.g., data collection, storage, access, and use, or decision making processes, etc.)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Centralized with some plans to decentralize.
Contribution to Blockchain Ecosystem

How compelling is the solution's contribution to the evolution of blockchain infrastructure and economy?

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.

Use of Blockchain

MZX is an ERC20 compliant token that is used to access the Mosaic platform. MZX is also used for voting on research and for rewarding researchers for their contributions, based on the quality of their research (as determined by token holders and by the accuracy of pertinent predictions). Hence, the need for a custom token is clear.

Use of Blockchain Roadmap

Whitepaper

2.0
Whitepaper
Comprehensiveness

Does it cover the full scope of the problem and solution?

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient coverage.
Readability

Is it easy enough to understand?

4.0
N/A
4 - Easy to read and understand.
Transparency

Does it candidly describe and disclose where the project now stands, how much exists and how much still needs to be done, etc.?

2.0
N/A
2 - Ambiguous non-disclosure.
Business Plan Presentation

Does it contain a viable, comprehensive business plan?

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely lacking.
Technology Presentation

Does it present a well thought out technological architecture? Does it address implementational challenges?

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely lacking.

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is quite short at 11 pages (the executive summary will be considered to be the whitepaper, as this is the most thorough document provided by Mosaic on their website). Overall, the document discusses the Mosaic platform in very low detail – the entirety of the discussion takes place in under two pages. As such, the technology and business plan presentations are missing critical details. Overall, the whitepaper is short, easy to ready, visually appealing, but the platform should be discussed in more detail.

Whitepaper Compliance

Roadmap

2.2
Roadmap
Concreteness

Is there a concrete and practical development plan (vs. just a conceptual vision)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Vague, noncommittal.
Feasibility

Is the development plan realistic? Is it based on reasonable goals and timelines?

3.0
N/A
3 - Optimistic.
Vision

Is there a larger, long-term vision?

2.0
N/A
2 - Riding the current wave.
Dependencies (services or capabilities)

How available, operational, or trusted are the other systems or capabilities on which the project relies?

2.0
N/A
2 - Not fully available or trustworthy.
Current Position

Where is the project now, relative to its vision and plans?

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.

Roadmap

The roadmap presented in the whitepaper spans from October 2017 to Q1 2018 and is quite vague. Only 6 milestones are presented, with no descriptions of what each milestone entails. Milestones reached thus far include the initial development of the platform, team formation, and research. The Mosaic Network is planned to launch in Q1 of 2018.

Roadmap Company and Team

Compliance

2.4
Compliance
Token Utility (value through usage)

How much use is there for the token itself (regardless of its value as an investment vehicle)?

4.0
N/A
4 - Distinctive use cases.
Token as Security (tradable instrument)

How valuable is the token as an investment vehicle or financial instrument?

3.0
N/A
3 - Partly; compliance not fully assured.
Token/Smart-Contract Readiness

Is the blockchain infrastructure of the project ready for use? Is there a working prototype or MVP? How long until it is operational?

1.0
N/A
1 - Nothing yet, just an idea.
Attention to Compliance Issues

How much attention is given to compliance (via token and ecosystem design, token sale participation, etc.)? Is this issue addressed directly and coherently?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minimal, superficial or hackneyed.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

What kind of legal documentation (reviews or agreements) and risk assessment are provided?

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient or unprofessional.

Compliance

The whitepaper contains a three-paragraphs-long disclaimer section at its end. It is not explicitly stated whether MZX tokens should considered securities. The language is not quite professional and includes statements for risk aversion purposes, including that “it is entirely possible that the Mosaic platform will never be implemented or adopted”.

Compliance Token Sale

Company and Team

2.8
Company and Team
Company Stage and Foundation

Is the company already established? Has it raised funds before? Is it mature?

3.0
N/A
3 - Company structure in place.
Background of Lead Team Members

Do we know who they are? Do they have LinkedIn profiles? Do they have solid, relevant backgrounds?

2.0
N/A
2 - Fragmented or inconclusive.
Team Assembly and Commitment

Is a solid, fully committed core team in place? Do they have online (e.g. LinkedIn) profiles showing sufficient relevant experience? Is their participation transparent?

3.0
N/A
3 - Mostly assembled and committed.
Team Skill Set Relevance

Does the amount of talent and skill in each area seem to fit the project requirements?

3.0
N/A
3 - Correlated to project requirements.
Team Skill Set Balance

Is the team well-rounded (biz/tech/blockchain)? Is there sufficient talent and skill in all areas of required development?

3.0
N/A
3 - Somewhat uncertain, probably okay.

Company and Team

The fairly large team of 21 individuals is presented in the whitepaper, with profile pictures and short descriptions of proficiencies and experiences. Links to social media accounts are not provided, but a manual search on LinkedIn (of a small sample size) shows that most team members have verifiable skills that align with their respective bio descriptions. One of the researchers was not found on LinkedIn (Dr. Ana Duek) and further investigation using other search platforms did not lead to findings that would verify the skills and experience presented in the whitepaper. The team members are organized into three groups: management (4), technology and product (6), and research (11). The skill set balance of the team is fairly reasonable considering the nature of the project.

Company and Team Product

Token Sale

1.2
Token Sale
Raise Amount Max

Is there a clear cap? Is the maximum raise amount modestly sufficient (as opposed to either greedy or insufficient)?

1.0
N/A
1 - Very greedy (e.g. uncapped).
Raise Amount Min

Is the minimum raise reasonable considering the development plan? Are there raise-amount dependent milestones?

1.0
N/A
1 - None or nonsensical.
Fund Allocation

Is fund distribution and allocation reasonable and justified?

1.0
N/A
1 - Not clear how funds will be used.
Token Allocation

Is the ratio of tokens sold to those kept reasonable? Does it prevent the company from having too much control?

1.0
N/A
1 - Obfuscated, or giving company control of market value.
Media Presence and Following

Is the sale being talked about in Reddit, Bitcointalk, Social Media, Medium, etc.? Is information available and accessible? Is there interest?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minor exposure and interest, or ambivalent reception.

Token Sale

Details of the token sale can be found on the Mosaic website. A considerable amount of information regarding the token sale is omitted. The total supply is 1 billion. The token allocation, fund allocation, soft cap, hard cap, and token price are not specified. The token sale takes place on February 5, 2018 to February 12, 2018.

Product

The Mosaic platform is targeting quite a small user base. However, to the benefit of Mosaic, the level of competition for a decentralized, democratized, research platform is relatively low compared to other sectors within the blockchain ecosystem. A GitHub page is not provided but a proof-of-concept is available on the Mosaic website.

Category Breakdown
Readiness

Is the product ready for use? Is there a working prototype or MVP? How long until it is operational?

2.0
N/A
2 - Proof of concept or test platform.
Appeal

How appealing is the product? How good or necessary is it? Does it have a distinct edge?

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.
Target User Base

Is it mass market or niche?

2.0
N/A
2 - Small audience / niche market.
Competition

Are there many other similar solutions or is this one of just a few, or even one of a kind?

4.0
N/A
4 - Few competitors / a leading solution.
Innovation

How innovative or inventive is the product, either conceptually or technologically?

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, but nothing outstanding.
Product Score:
2.4

Use of Blockchain

MZX is an ERC20 compliant token that is used to access the Mosaic platform. MZX is also used for voting on research and for rewarding researchers for their contributions, based on the quality of their research (as determined by token holders and by the accuracy of pertinent predictions). Hence, the need for a custom token is clear.

Category Breakdown
Blockchain Development

Is blockchain technology essential? Does it make the solution significantly different and better?

3.0
N/A
3 - Automation; making something easier to do.
Disruptive Blockchain Advantage

How disruptive is the introduction of blockchain technology into the product's market space?

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, but not much.
Need for a Custom Token (vs. BTC or ETH)

Is the token essential or could it be done just as well or better with fiat or Bitcoin?

3.0
N/A
3 - Issuing a custom token is justifiable.
System Decentralization (besides token)

How decentralized is the system architecture other than the token (e.g., data collection, storage, access, and use, or decision making processes, etc.)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Centralized with some plans to decentralize.
Contribution to Blockchain Ecosystem

How compelling is the solution's contribution to the evolution of blockchain infrastructure and economy?

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.
Use of Blockchain Score:
2.4

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is quite short at 11 pages (the executive summary will be considered to be the whitepaper, as this is the most thorough document provided by Mosaic on their website). Overall, the document discusses the Mosaic platform in very low detail – the entirety of the discussion takes place in under two pages. As such, the technology and business plan presentations are missing critical details. Overall, the whitepaper is short, easy to ready, visually appealing, but the platform should be discussed in more detail.

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

Does it cover the full scope of the problem and solution?

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient coverage.
Readability

Is it easy enough to understand?

4.0
N/A
4 - Easy to read and understand.
Transparency

Does it candidly describe and disclose where the project now stands, how much exists and how much still needs to be done, etc.?

2.0
N/A
2 - Ambiguous non-disclosure.
Business Plan Presentation

Does it contain a viable, comprehensive business plan?

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely lacking.
Technology Presentation

Does it present a well thought out technological architecture? Does it address implementational challenges?

1.0
N/A
1 - Severely lacking.
Whitepaper Score:
2.0

Roadmap

The roadmap presented in the whitepaper spans from October 2017 to Q1 2018 and is quite vague. Only 6 milestones are presented, with no descriptions of what each milestone entails. Milestones reached thus far include the initial development of the platform, team formation, and research. The Mosaic Network is planned to launch in Q1 of 2018.

Category Breakdown
Concreteness

Is there a concrete and practical development plan (vs. just a conceptual vision)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Vague, noncommittal.
Feasibility

Is the development plan realistic? Is it based on reasonable goals and timelines?

3.0
N/A
3 - Optimistic.
Vision

Is there a larger, long-term vision?

2.0
N/A
2 - Riding the current wave.
Dependencies (services or capabilities)

How available, operational, or trusted are the other systems or capabilities on which the project relies?

2.0
N/A
2 - Not fully available or trustworthy.
Current Position

Where is the project now, relative to its vision and plans?

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.
Roadmap Score:
2.2

Compliance

The whitepaper contains a three-paragraphs-long disclaimer section at its end. It is not explicitly stated whether MZX tokens should considered securities. The language is not quite professional and includes statements for risk aversion purposes, including that “it is entirely possible that the Mosaic platform will never be implemented or adopted”.

Category Breakdown
Token Utility (value through usage)

How much use is there for the token itself (regardless of its value as an investment vehicle)?

4.0
N/A
4 - Distinctive use cases.
Token as Security (tradable instrument)

How valuable is the token as an investment vehicle or financial instrument?

3.0
N/A
3 - Partly; compliance not fully assured.
Token/Smart-Contract Readiness

Is the blockchain infrastructure of the project ready for use? Is there a working prototype or MVP? How long until it is operational?

1.0
N/A
1 - Nothing yet, just an idea.
Attention to Compliance Issues

How much attention is given to compliance (via token and ecosystem design, token sale participation, etc.)? Is this issue addressed directly and coherently?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minimal, superficial or hackneyed.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

What kind of legal documentation (reviews or agreements) and risk assessment are provided?

2.0
N/A
2 - Insufficient or unprofessional.
Compliance Score:
2.4

Company and Team

The fairly large team of 21 individuals is presented in the whitepaper, with profile pictures and short descriptions of proficiencies and experiences. Links to social media accounts are not provided, but a manual search on LinkedIn (of a small sample size) shows that most team members have verifiable skills that align with their respective bio descriptions. One of the researchers was not found on LinkedIn (Dr. Ana Duek) and further investigation using other search platforms did not lead to findings that would verify the skills and experience presented in the whitepaper. The team members are organized into three groups: management (4), technology and product (6), and research (11). The skill set balance of the team is fairly reasonable considering the nature of the project.

Category Breakdown
Company Stage and Foundation

Is the company already established? Has it raised funds before? Is it mature?

3.0
N/A
3 - Company structure in place.
Background of Lead Team Members

Do we know who they are? Do they have LinkedIn profiles? Do they have solid, relevant backgrounds?

2.0
N/A
2 - Fragmented or inconclusive.
Team Assembly and Commitment

Is a solid, fully committed core team in place? Do they have online (e.g. LinkedIn) profiles showing sufficient relevant experience? Is their participation transparent?

3.0
N/A
3 - Mostly assembled and committed.
Team Skill Set Relevance

Does the amount of talent and skill in each area seem to fit the project requirements?

3.0
N/A
3 - Correlated to project requirements.
Team Skill Set Balance

Is the team well-rounded (biz/tech/blockchain)? Is there sufficient talent and skill in all areas of required development?

3.0
N/A
3 - Somewhat uncertain, probably okay.
Company and Team Score:
2.8

Token Sale

Details of the token sale can be found on the Mosaic website. A considerable amount of information regarding the token sale is omitted. The total supply is 1 billion. The token allocation, fund allocation, soft cap, hard cap, and token price are not specified. The token sale takes place on February 5, 2018 to February 12, 2018.

Category Breakdown
Raise Amount Max

Is there a clear cap? Is the maximum raise amount modestly sufficient (as opposed to either greedy or insufficient)?

1.0
N/A
1 - Very greedy (e.g. uncapped).
Raise Amount Min

Is the minimum raise reasonable considering the development plan? Are there raise-amount dependent milestones?

1.0
N/A
1 - None or nonsensical.
Fund Allocation

Is fund distribution and allocation reasonable and justified?

1.0
N/A
1 - Not clear how funds will be used.
Token Allocation

Is the ratio of tokens sold to those kept reasonable? Does it prevent the company from having too much control?

1.0
N/A
1 - Obfuscated, or giving company control of market value.
Media Presence and Following

Is the sale being talked about in Reddit, Bitcointalk, Social Media, Medium, etc.? Is information available and accessible? Is there interest?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minor exposure and interest, or ambivalent reception.
Token Sale Score:
1.2

Use this code to share the ratings on your website